During his recent (1st of February 2010) visit to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi expressed his hope to include Israel among the EU countries: “my greatest desire, as long as I am a protagonist in politics, is to bring Israel into membership of the European Union”.

The State of Israel has its religious roots in the Biblical Land of Israel. After the birth of Zionism and the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations granted the UK the Mandate of Palestine with the responsibility of establishing a Jewish national home.

After the end of the Second World War and the horrible genocide of over 6 million Jews perpetuated by Nazi Germany, the Zionist movement pressed the public opinion in order to obtain the immediate creation of the State of Israel. The Zionist found an important ally in the United States, where the Jewish community is very influent.

In the 1947 the United Nations decided to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish State. The Arabs rejected the plan. On May 14, 1948 the State of Israel was created and the following day the Arabs (Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan in particular) attacked the new-born Jewish State. After a year of fighting a ceasefire was called and Palestine was divided between Jordan and Israel. This was the beginning of the tragedy for the Palestinian refugees that, still today, do not possess their own State and freedom.

Israel has always received both economical and military support by the United States, which was the first country to recognize the State of Israel pushed by its own influent Jewish community and by the fact that the Zionist State has seen as a strategic ally in the Middle East.
For this reason the military actions and war crimes perpetuated by Israel have always been justified and accepted by the United States. As often underlined by Chomsky, the crimes committed by the United States and their allies do not exist, while the crimes committed by the other nations or entities are the absolute evil.

Israel does not share with Europe the same history, the same respect for human rights and the principle of rejection of war as a means to solve conflicts. In my opinion the admission of Israel in the EU will slow down the already weak process of European integration. Moreover Berlusconi justified his European dream for Israel with “the fact that we are part of a Judeo-Christian culture that is the basis for European culture”.

This is a fundamental point. I believe that all religions must be respected, but the future Europe should be based on secular beliefs. This is absolutely necessary in order not to repeat the same mistakes already made by Europe in the past. I find the clash of civilization predicted by Samuel Huntington an absurd theory, but if our policymakers will build the future Europe on religious beliefs, then the Huntington’s prediction could become true.

Another country that has been linked with the EU is Turkey. Also Turkey has been supported by the United States, in this case for strategic military and economic reasons only.  If Turkey and Israel will become EU members, this fact could put at risk the entire process of European integration, because it would be impossible to achieve a truly unified foreign policy and a political Union with countries so influenced by the United States and with a different historical background. It is true that in the US, Europe is seen as an ally, but more than that, the American administration sees Europe as a dangerous competitor to their global hegemony. Some pro-Americans European political parties (such as Berlusconi’s party) are supporting the American objective of weakening the EU.

If Europe wants to create not only an economical, but also a political union and possibly a Federation of European Nations we should be ready to accept the creation of two different levels of integration. The first and the lowest level of integration (“Social-Economic”) would have similar competences and the same country members as the actual European Union. In this Union could also be included States such as Turkey and Russia.
As I have already stated in a previous article, the alliance with Russia is absolutely fundamental for the EU both for economical (interdependence in the energy market) and political (to counterbalance the hegemonic power of the United States) reasons.

The second level of European integration (“Federal”) would be deeper than the first one and should led to a more integrated and unified foreign policy in the short term, and to the creation of a Federation of European Nations in the long term. This second level cannot be open to every single State. In my opinion, only a small number of countries are culturally and economically ready for a deeper level of European integration and these countries are essentially those that started the European Community more than 60 years ago (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxemburg) with the addition of a few other States (Spain, Portugal and the Scandinavians ones).

This process will not leave behind the weakest European countries, because the promotion of other States to the “Federal” level will always be open and possible, moreover, as explained above, the current EU functions will persist within the “Social Economic” Union.

If Europe wants to play an important role in the international scenario must start questioning its own future and credibility. The acceptation of whatever countries in the EU, without differentiations, is certainly not the way to create a truly political and not only economical Union.

No related posts.

The UN Conference on Climate Change which took place in Copenhagen between the 7th and 18th of December 2009 ended in failure.

The agreement signed is not legally binding and does not include any proposals for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The accord only promises to deliver 30 billion dollars (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years outlining a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.
The Copenhagen accord only recognises the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2°C, but does not contain any commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal. This agreement has been strongly criticised by developing and Third World countries, because the deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US only.

The Sudanese negotiator, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, said “this is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It’s a solution based on values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces.”
The United States did not acknowledge their responsibility and President Obama showed to the world that he did not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “the city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport”.
The US arrived at the Copenhagen Summit with an offer of just 3% emission cuts on 1990 levels: a ridiculous proposal from the major emitter together with China that affected the talks since the beginning of the Summit.

And the European Union? As mentioned above, the deal has been discussed between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the United States. What about the leadership role claimed by the EU? And its proposal of cutting the output of greenhouse gases by 20% or 30% on 1990 levels?
The EU has not been considered by the US and other countries during the Summit. The EU failed. The EU comes out of the Summit without any importance in the international arena.

It is clear that the first responsible for the failure of the European Union are Van Rumpoy, Catherine Ashton and Manuel Barroso. They are almost unknown in the international arena and they cannot represents such an important organization. As I have already underlined in a previous article, the appointments of the two most important offices of the European Union makes me think that the majority of European leaders prefer a weak Europe rather than a strong one. We have seen the dramatic effects of these appointments in Copenhagen.
Now the world does not have a legally binding treaty on climate change and Europe is a completely not influent player in the world affairs. The ones who sustained the appointments of Van Rompuy and Catherine Ashton must be considered as responsible for the failure of the European Union and for its current lack of credibility and importance.

If the European Union wants to become an important player, the member States must immediately stop to only looking at their own narrow self-interest.
Moreover, it is time to be clear. Great men, such as Victor Hugo, Spinelli and Monet dreamed about a Federation of European States characterized by a political union, not only an economic one. This is the only way to form a Great Europe. In order to achieve it, we must clarify “who is in” and “who is out”. The behaviour of some member States who see the European Union only as a “bank” where to get money is no longer acceptable. The countries who do not believe in the future of an unified Europe should reconsider their position.

For what concern the environment, we cannot accept the weak outline of the Copenhagen Summit. As Robert Bailey (Oxfam International) said, “it is too late to save the summit, but it’s not too late to save the planet and its people. We have no choice but to forge forward towards a legally binding deal in 2010”. The reduction in global CO2 emissions in order to prevent temperatures rises above 1.5 °C over pre-industrial level, and a legally binding treaty are absolutely fundamental in order to avoid catastrophic events.
Because the Kyoto Protocol will expire by the end of 2012, the Copenhagen non-decisions are a serious threat to the few things that we achieved in that circumstance.

Western countries did not acknowledge their responsibilities for the damage caused during their own process of industrialization. Rich countries, especially the United States, were not ready to make deeper cuts in their emission than developing countries. If we want to reach an agreement on climate change we must make deeper cut than developing countries. The Western world must also provide financial and technologic aids to developing and Third World countries helping them to achieve a “green economy”.

The agreement proposed by the US and China is not what we need in order to fight climate change.

No related posts.

Welcome to Copenhagen! The UN Conference on Climate Change has started yesterday (7th of December 2009) in the Danish capital.
As we have already underlined in other articles, as the Kyoto protocol will terminate by the end of 2012, this summit will be fundamental in order to find a new agreement on climate change.
Tom Burke, funding director of sustainable development company E3G, said “to fail in Copenhagen is to invite chaos in our lives as a permanent guest”.

The chance of finding a new agreement are good, but what today is proposed would not be sufficient to stop the dramatic effects of global warming.

The United States proposes a cut of 17% in their emission, considering the 2005 level. It means a 3% cut compared on 1990 level. This is a ridiculous offer from a country which is the major emitter together with China.
Yesterday the EPA (America Environment Protection Agency) declared that the greenhouse gases are threatening public health. Even thought the anti-Copenhagen lobby in the US is very powerful, I hope that President Obama will take into consideration the EPA position and will propose deeper cuts in Copenhagen.
The problem is that the US does not want to limit its emission unless China does, but developing nations are not required to reduce emission without compensation.

The European Union is the organization more active in trying to fight climate change. However, some disagreements between Eastern and Western European Countries made impossible for the EU to have a coherent policy on the financial aid to developing countries. In fact, Eastern European countries have been firmly against the idea of linking contribution to polluting levels suggesting that the burden sharing be divided according to national income.

The EU has already proposed to cut its output of greenhouse gases by 20% on 1990 levels by 2020. Today Gordon Brown pushed the European Leaders to accept a deeper cut (30%) on their emissions. However, the EU will cut by 30% only if other developed Countries will do the same.
Several NGOs, such as Oxfam International, are calling the EU to unilaterally cut by 30%. It is suggested that other developed countries will be forced to follow the European example. The EU, in so doing, would reach a leadership role in the international affairs and the global warming would be stopped.
Unfortunately, yesterday, President Barroso said “I think there will be no treaty in Copenhagen. Some of our partners are not preparing for it. What we are trying to get is an agreement. Only after it is put under the pertinent law, the agreement will become a treaty”.
The President should be more positive and pro-active in these fundamental days for the future of humanity.

Developing countries are calling the rich and industrialized countries to give financial and technological aids, in order to help them in achieving cleaner industrialization.
It is important that Western developed countries will acknowledge their responsibilities. We must be ready to operate deeper cuts than developing and Third World countries and to assure them financial and technological aids.

Yesterday, the Guardian published a secret Danish proposal. This text proposes that emissions from developed nations should be reduced by 80 percent by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. It also proposes for an interim reduction target for developed countries by 2020 to be set. The “Danish text” also said that “developing countries, except the least developed which may contribute at their own discretion, commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions”.
Developing countries criticize the proposed division between the least developed and other developing nations. Another concern is given by the suggestion to transfer more control over the enforcement of the Copenhagen agreement from the UN administration to the World Bank. This fact would shift more control over to the industrialized world.
Lumumba Stanislaus Dia ping, chair of the Group of 77, said to a Danish newspaper: “You need to listen to all countries. That’s what democracy is about, and that’s what you have been cheering in Denmark. What your Prime Minister does is contrary to the spirit of the developing aid, which Denmark has provided for Africa through many years”.

This Denmark text does not suggest anything similar to the percentage of cuts needed to save the planet. Moreover the Western world must acknowledge its responsibilities for the damage caused to the environment during their own industrialisation. Richer countries must therefore find a way to assist developing nations in achieving cleaner industrialisation.

Even us, common citizens, we must be ready to use less energy and to pay it more. We must be careful in our every day actions. We must take care of the environment. We must be responsible.

The 110 Head of States that will try to find an agreement in the final days of the Copenhagen Summit must understand that the cost of cutting greenhouse emissions is far less important than the damage that global warming would cause if we won’t stop it. The time for lobbies, disagreements and parochial interests is over: it’s time for action and everyone must collaborate.

No related posts.